This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, implements an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Part 925 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of grapes operating within the production area, and a public member.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have tribal implications. AMS has determined this final rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, grape handlers in the production area are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate be applicable to all assessable grapes for the 2021 fiscal period and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such a handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule increases the assessment rate from $0.020 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled, the rate that was established for the 2018 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled for the 2021 and subsequent fiscal periods.

The Order authorizes the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2018 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.020 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled. That assessment rate continued in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period until modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on November 4, 2020, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $85,500, and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled for the 2021 and subsequent fiscal periods. In comparison, the previous fiscal period's budgeted expenditures were $121,100. The assessment rate of $0.040 is $0.020 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to provide adequate income to cover the Committee's budgeted expenses for the 2021 fiscal period, as well as add funds to the contingency reserve. Funds in the reserve are expected to be approximately $50,100 at the end of the 2021 fiscal period, which is within the Order's requirement to carryover no more than approximately one fiscal period's budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2021 fiscal period include $50,000 for management and compliance expenses, $19,500 for direct office expenses, and $16,000 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance expenses.

Budgeted expenses for the 2020 fiscal period were $56,000 for management and compliance expenses, $28,500 for production research, $20,700 for direct office expenses, and $15,900 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance expenses.

In 2020, the Committee determined that the contingency reserve fund had grown too large, so the Committee used $37,100 from the reserve to help fund the 2020 budget rather than raise the assessment rate.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses, an estimated crop of 2.5 million 18-pound lugs of assessable grapes, and the amount of funds available in the authorized contingency reserve. Income derived from handler assessments, calculated at $100,000 (2.5 million 18-pound lugs of assessable grapes multiplied by $0.040 assessment rate), is expected to be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $85,500, as well as add a small amount of funds ($14,500) back into the contingency reserve. Funds in the reserve are estimated to be $50,100 at the end of the 2021 fiscal period.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings will be available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2021 fiscal period budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 10 handlers subject to the regulation under the Order, and approximately 21 producers of grapes in the production area. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $1,000,000, and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to the Committee data, USDA Market News Shipping Point Data, and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the national average producer price data released in 2020 for the 2019 production year was approximately $10.62 per 18-pound lug. Assuming that the 2020 producer price remains the same as that for 2019 and using Committee data for the 2020 total grape production of 2,448,021 18-pound lugs, the total 2020 value of the grape crop was $25,997,983 (2,448,021 18-pound lugs times $10.62 per 18-pound lug equals $25,997,983). Dividing the total grape crop value by the estimated number of producers (21) yields an estimated average receipt per producer of $1,237,999, which is above the SBA threshold for small producers.

According to USDA Market News data, the reported terminal price for 2020 for grapes ranged between $18.95 to $24.95 per 18-pound lug. The average of this range is $21.95 ($18.95 plus $24.95 divided by 2). Multiplying the 2020 grape total production of 2,448,021 18-pound lugs by the estimated average price per 18-pound lug of $21.95 equals $53,734,061.

Dividing this figure by 10 regulated handlers yields estimated average annual handler receipts of $5,373,406, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, using the above data and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers may be considered large entities while the majority of handlers in the production area may be classified as small entities.

Based upon information from NASS, the grower price reported for grapes in 2019 was $1,180 per ton ($10.62 per 18-pound lug) of grapes. In order to determine the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of the total grower revenue, we calculate the assessment rate ($0.040 per 18-pound lug) times the estimated production (2,500,000 18-pound lugs), which equals the assessment revenue of $100,000.

The grower revenue is calculated by multiplying the grower price of $10.62 per 18-pound lug times the estimated production (2,500,000 18-pound lugs), which equals the grower revenue of $26,550,000.

In the final step, dividing the assessment revenue by the grower revenue indicates that, for the 2021 fiscal period, the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.38 percent.

This rule increases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2021 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.020 to $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2021 expenditures of $85,500 and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled. The assessment rate of $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled is $0.020 higher than the rate currently in effect. The volume of assessable grapes for the 2021 fiscal period is estimated to be 2,500,000 18-pound lugs. Thus, the $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled should provide $100,000 in assessment income (2,500,000 multiplied by $0.040). Therefore, income derived from handler assessments is expected to be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2021 fiscal period.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2021 fiscal period include $50,000 for management and compliance expenses, $19,500 for direct office expenses, and $16,000 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance expenses. Budgeted expenses for the 2020 fiscal period were $56,000 for management and compliance, $28,500 for production research, $20,700 for direct office, and $15,900 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance.

The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to provide adequate income to cover the Committee's budgeted expenses for the 2021 fiscal period, while adding funds to its financial reserve. This action is expected to maintain the Committee's reserve balance at a level that the Committee believes is appropriate and meets the requirements of the Order.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate recommendation, the Committee discussed various alternatives, including maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.020 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled, and increasing the assessment rate by a different amount. However, the Committee determined that the recommended assessment rate should fully fund budgeted expenses and add funds to the contingency reserve.

This rule increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 4, 2020, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, had an opportunity to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements will be necessary as a result of this rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large southeastern California grape handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2021 (86 FR 16085). Copies of the proposal were provided by the Committee to producers and handlers. Finally, the proposed rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 45-day comment period ending May 10, 2021, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. Seven comments were received.

Five of the comments received were in favor of the assessment rate increase and two were neither in favor nor opposed to the proposal.

Four of the five comments in favor were generally supportive of the assessment rate. The other comment in favor appeared to misunderstand the rule's merits, the parties affected, and its potential impact on the industry, but was nonetheless supportive of the action.

Two of the comments referenced the consideration of small businesses and the impact of this rule. One of the comments incorrectly assumed that small businesses would pay a lower assessment rate than their larger counterparts. The comment also believed that assessments were paid by “producers/growers” and suggested that such assessments be proportionate to their production.

As previously discussed in the rule, assessments are paid only by handlers and such assessments are applied uniformly regardless of the size of the handler based on the volume of product that they handle. As stated above, and in the proposed rule, some of the increased cost of assessment may be passed on to producers, but such costs are believed to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order. In addition, a RFA analysis was conducted by USDA in consideration of this action to ensure that the regulatory action fits the scale of businesses subject to the action and that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened by it.

One comment raised questions regarding what grapes are assessable under this rule. Further, the comment requested clarity in the role of the Committee in recommending the assessment increase and the Committee's public outreach to ensure that all interested parties were able to provide input.

Under the Order, only grapes produced within the production area as defined in the Order are subject to assessment. Also prescribed by the Order, the Committee is the administrative body duly appointed by USDA to oversee the Order's operation. The Committee is made up of producers and handlers operating within the production area, and a public member. As such, Committee members are familiar with the program's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area. They are, therefore, in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and to recommend the assessment rate. Committee actions are recommended at public meetings where the meetings have been duly posted and promoted throughout the industry and all industry participants are encouraged to attend and provide input.

Two comments mistakenly associated the assessment rate increase with COVID-19 and California wildfire relief efforts that would provide economic stimulus for the desert grape industry.

This action is not correlated with any external event or events, nor any economic challenges that may have been precipitated by such events. The assessment rate increase is related only to the cost of the Committee's budgeted expenditures for the upcoming year and the projected size of the desert grape crop for that year.

One comment questioned why excess assessments collected are held over in a financial reserve fund and requested more information with regards to what happens with these funds.

Section 925.42 provides the authority for the Committee to hold excess funds as a reserve against future expenditures. The Committee may hold no more than approximately one fiscal period's expenses in reserve. Funds held in reserve are primarily to be used to: (1) Defray expenses, during any fiscal period, prior to the time the assessment income is sufficient to cover such expenses; and (2) cover deficits incurred during any fiscal period when assessment income is less than expenses.

Lastly, one comment suggested that the assessment rate should only be established for one year and that the rate should be reassessed at the end of that period. The commentor felt that one year would allow the Committee to collect data to assess the impact of the increase and determine whether it should be continued in the future.

As stated above and in the proposed rule, while the assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period of time, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Notice and comment rulemaking to adjust the assessment rate would be undertaken as necessary.

Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is amended as follows:

On June 1, 2020, FSIS proposed to amend its regulations (9 CFR 352.1) to add yak to its list of “exotic animals” eligible for voluntary inspection (85 FR 33034, June 1, 2020). FSIS proposed to define yak as a long-haired bovid animal originally found throughout the Himalaya region of southern Central Asia and the Tibetan Plateau. The proposed rule explained that while yak was not listed in the regulations as an “exotic animal,” the Agency has inspected yak under its voluntary program for several years.

As FSIS explained in the proposed rule, on September 3, 2014, the International Yak Association (IYAK) submitted a petition for rulemaking, 1 under 9 CFR part 392, requesting that FSIS amend 9 CFR 352.1(k) to include yak under the definition of an “exotic animal.” The petitioner stated that because FSIS had voluntarily inspected yak for many years, it had created an expectation among breeders and buyers that FSIS would continue to inspect yak. On November 21, 2014, IYAK submitted additional supporting data. 2 IYAK had surveyed United States yak producers and found that continued FSIS inspection of yak meat was critical to the industry as a whole.

After reviewing the petition and supporting data, FSIS decided to grant the petition, and stated that it would continue to voluntarily inspect yak while FSIS went through rulemaking to add yak to the list of exotic animals eligible for voluntary inspection. 3 4

In the proposed rule, FSIS also requested comments on whether the regulations should be amended to list as eligible for voluntary inspection all farm-raised species in the biological families Cervidae ( e.g., moose, all deer and elk), all Bovidae not currently subject to mandatory inspection ( e.g., water buffalo and impalas), and Camelidae ( e.g., camel, llama, and alpaca). And, based on interest from stakeholders, FSIS requested comment as to whether any species in these families, if not currently subject to mandatory inspection, should be. FSIS already requires the inspection of some species of the biological family Bovidae under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601(w)). These species include cattle, sheep, and goats.

After considering the comments received on the proposed rule, discussed below, FSIS is finalizing the proposed rule with some changes. In response to public comment, the final rule will also amend 9 CFR 352.1 to revise the definitions of antelope (9 CFR 352.1(c)), bison (9 CFR 352.1 (e)), buffalo (9 CFR 352.1(f)), catalo (9 CFR 352.1(g)), deer (9 CFR 352.1(j)), elk (9 CFR 352.1(l)), reindeer (9 CFR 352.1(x)), and water buffalo (9 CFR 352.1(aa)) to make them more taxonomically accurate.

FSIS received seven comments from individuals, a yak producer, and a llama and alpaca producer. A summary of the comments and FSIS's responses follows.

A yak producer and an individual supported defining yak and including it among “exotic animals” eligible for voluntary inspection under 9 CFR part 352. The individual stated that formally allowing for voluntary inspection of yak will help the continued growth of the yak industry by creating consumer trust in the product. Both commenters stated that allowing for voluntary inspection of yak gives consumers a healthy and sustainable red meat alternative.

Comment: Comments from three individuals stated that species from the families Bovidae, Cervidae, and Camelidae could be slaughtered and processed under either mandatory or voluntary inspection, depending on whether certain criteria are met, including whether there is a sufficient market for consumers to justify mandatory inspection. Furthermore, the same three individuals suggested that yak should be slaughtered and prepared under mandatory FSIS inspection. According to these commenters, yak should be amenable under the FMIA, because it meets the dictionary definition of “cattle,” and yak are transported and held in pens for slaughter like other amenable cattle.

A producer of deer, elk, bison, llama, and alpaca recommended that FSIS revise 9 CFR part 352 to allow for any “large farm-raised mammals” to be eligible for voluntary inspection. Specifically, the commenter requested that FSIS provide voluntary inspection for llamas and alpacas. The commenter argued that producers of llamas and alpacas would benefit from FSIS voluntary inspection, because it would alleviate confusion and create consistency for the llama and alpaca industry.

Response: FSIS would need to gather more economic and scientific information before deciding whether to expand the list of species eligible for voluntary inspection or subject to mandatory inspection. Therefore, FSIS is not making any additional changes to the regulations at this time.

Comment: A few individuals noted that 9 CFR 352.1(f) defines “buffalo” as “any animal belonging to the buffalo family.” The commenters argued that definition should be revised because “buffalo family” is not an accurate scientific classification.

Response: FSIS acknowledges that the definition of “buffalo” in 9 CFR 352.1(f) is not taxonomically accurate. In addition to “buffalo,” FSIS is correcting the definitions of all the exotic species covered under 9 CFR 352.1. Specifically, FSIS has corrected the definitions of antelope (9 CFR 352.1(c)), bison (9 CFR 352.1 (e)), buffalo (9 CFR 352.1(f)), catalo (9 CFR 352.1(g)), deer (9 CFR 352.1(j)), elk (9 CFR 352.1(l)), reindeer (9 CFR 352.1(x)), and water buffalo (9 CFR 352.1(aa)) to make them taxonomically accurate.

Comment: A few individuals questioned why the proposed rule did not address rabbits and other lagomorphs that are produced under voluntary inspection.

Response: These comments are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, since voluntary inspection of rabbits is addressed in a different part of its regulations, in 9 CFR part 354.

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

FSIS has updated the number of yak establishments under the voluntary inspection program in this final rule from those published in the proposed rule based on more recent labeling data. In response to comments on the proposed rule, FSIS is also clarifying the definitions of antelope, bison, buffalo, catalo, deer, elk, reindeer, and water buffalo in the regulations to make them more taxonomically accurate. FSIS does not expect any quantifiable costs or benefits will be associated with these revisions.

FSIS does not expect any additional industry or Agency costs as a result of this final rule because, although yak is not currently listed as an “exotic animal” eligible for voluntary inspection, FSIS has been inspecting yak under the voluntary inspection program for many years.

In 2014, IYAK conducted a National Yak Industry Survey to support its petition requesting that FSIS amend 9 CFR 352.1(k) to include Yak under the definition of an “exotic animal.” According to IYAK's survey, FSIS voluntarily inspected 109 yaks from 22 establishments in 2014. The IYAK survey also stated that there were 33 total establishments slaughtering yak in 2014. From 2014 to December 3, 2020, 23 unique establishments submitted a total of 76 yak product labels to the FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Staff (LPDS) for approval. 5 These establishments will benefit from being able to continue to use their labels with FSIS's voluntary mark of inspection. According to the 2014 IYAK survey, 90 percent of the establishments surveyed noted that USDA inspection is critical to the yak industry. Amending 9 CFR 352.1 to list yak as an “exotic animal” eligible for FSIS's voluntary inspection service will avoid disruption to the yak industry and possible economic harm to producers if FSIS stopped voluntarily inspecting yak.

The FSIS Administrator has made a determination that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This rule will allow FSIS to continue to voluntarily inspect yak and there will be no increased costs to industry. Small and very small yak establishments that choose to continue to receive voluntary inspection will benefit from being able to continue to use their labels with FSIS's voluntary mark of inspection. About 17 percent of the establishments that submitted yak labels from 2014 to December 3, 2020, were classified as small under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) sizes and 83 percent were classified as very small. 6 The final rule will benefit small and very small establishments because it will continue to give these establishments access to the FSIS voluntary mark of inspection and access to buyers who look for that mark of inspection when making purchasing decisions.

There are no new paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purpose of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq. ) by, among other things, promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizens access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS website located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS website. Through the website, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR part 352 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-300ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2020 (85 FR 85557). The NPRM was prompted by report indicating that a production design change to certain insulation blankets inadvertently opened up leakage paths for halon and smoke to escape from the aft cargo compartment in the event of a fire. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installation of an insulation blanket assembly on top of existing insulation blankets in certain areas of the forward endwall in the aft cargo compartment. The FAA is issuing this AD to address increased leakage paths, which, in the event of a fire, could result in loss of fire suppressant in the cargo compartment, and could lead to an uncontained fire and subsequent loss of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from one commenter, Boeing, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from one commenter, United Airlines. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines stated that it agrees with the intent of the proposed AD. United Airlines also recommended that Boeing update the applicable IPC to show configuration control of the new part numbers that are installed during the accomplishment of the actions specified in the referenced service information. United Airlines noted that the update would provide proper configuration control and documentation support to maintain the new insulation blanket installation changes made prior to the release of the AD. United Airlines also asserted that the change could mitigate incorrect blanket installation.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's recommendation and reasoning. However, the FAA does not control or require changes to the IPC. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 777-25-0753 RB, dated July 31, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for installing an insulation blanket assembly on top of existing insulation blankets on the left and right side corner of the forward endwall in the aft cargo compartment. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2020 (85 FR 73430). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that during investigation of a fuel leak, fatigue cracking was found on the forward inboard side of the fuel tank access door cutouts on the left and right lower wing skin. The cause of the cracking is attributed to corrosion damage. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections for any existing repair of the wing lower skin fuel tank and dry bay access door cutouts on the left and right lower wing skin, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from Boeing and United Airlines. Those commenters supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from six commenters, including AeroLogic, Air France, American Airlines, Emirates, FedEx Express (FedEx), and one individual. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

AeroLogic, Air France, American Airlines, and Emirates asked that the FAA re-evaluate and extend the initial and repetitive calendar-based compliance times in the proposed AD to match heavy maintenance intervals. The commenters stated that the 1,125-day compliance time does not align with existing MPD intervals of 3,000 days and 4,500 days or the existing heavy maintenance intervals. One commenter stated that, as a long-range freight specialist it has an average flight hour/flight cycle ratio of 6.0 to 6.3, thus reaching the flight hour LOV of the Model 777F before reaching the flight cycle utilization that the aircraft with crack findings had at the time of crack detection. The commenters also stated that more frequent opening and closing of the access doors could increase the chance of corrosion. although the airplane with the initial crack finding was 19 years old at the time cracking was found, and Boeing reported that only minimal corrosion was found during lab testing of the cracking.

The FAA does not agree with the requests to extend the compliance time. The compliance times were coordinated with the design approval holder based on its analysis and fleet findings. Additionally, the commenters did not provide substantiation data that shows that the proposed extended inspection intervals provide adequate crack detection. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety. This AD has not been changed in this regard.

Air France stated that paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD would require using “the effective date of this AD,” except where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0118 RB, dated June 23, 2020, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0118 RB” in a note or flag note. Air France noted that making the exception depend on a note or flag note is confusing. Air France asked that the FAA change the exception to apply throughout the proposed AD requirements instead of depending on where the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0118 RB” is used.

The FAA agrees to change the exception in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. The exception specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD was intended to apply only to certain dates referenced in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0118 RB, dated June 23, 2020. The exception applies to the associated date in the Effectivity paragraph and the Condition and Compliance columns of tables 1 through 10 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” and not to flag note (c) in the tables. Repairs accomplished relative to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0118 RB, as specified in flag note (c) in those tables, do not need an exception for compliance with this AD. The FAA has changed paragraph (h)(1) of this AD accordingly.

FedEx stated that the hours estimated for “the inspection” in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM is lower than its forecast of 80 work-hours and 60 elapsed hours. FedEx noted that the NPRM specified only 34 work-hours.

The FAA infers that the commenter is asking to increase the work hours for the general visual inspections specified in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD to 80 work-hours. We do not agree. The estimate of 34 work-hours includes access and close for accomplishing the general visual inspections. The FAA recognizes that additional on-condition inspections could be required, depending on the results of the general visual inspection. However, since the FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition inspections, the hours and cost estimates for the additional inspections are provided in the on-condition actions table on a per-airplane basis. This AD has not been changed in this regard.

One individual asked that the FAA allow detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for airplanes in Group 3, Condition 17 (for the right wing), similar to the detailed and HFEC inspections allowed for airplanes in Group 3, Condition 14 (for the left wing). The commenter observed that Condition 14 specifies detailed and HFEC inspections, whereas Condition 17 specifies contacting Boeing. The commenter stated that these conditions are the same and symmetrical for the left- and right-hand wings.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. Configurations on Group 3 airplanes may be different on the left and right sides due to previously approved repairs or production changes. The inspection procedures were coordinated with the design approval holder regarding the airplane configurations. Therefore, this AD has not been changed in this regard.

AeroLogic stated that the proposed compliance time would result in an economic impact that was not considered in the operator burden provided in the cost estimate.

The FAA provides the following clarification: The cost information describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time necessary for planning or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate.

Aerologic also stated that the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) recommends using new gaskets to prevent fuel leaks after each tank access. Therefore, the parts cost should be estimated with up to 240 USD per gasket. At 18 Access Doors opened for every repeat inspection, this sums up to 4,320 USD per aircraft for each inspection cycle.

The FAA does not agree to change the estimated parts costs, as the actions in the AMM are not required by this AD.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0118 RB, dated June 23, 2020. The service information describes procedures for repetitive general visual inspections for any existing repair of the fuel tank access door cutouts on the left and right lower wing skin, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include detailed and HFEC inspections for any corrosion, fretting, and cracking; a blend out of corrosion or fretting that meets certain criteria; and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 221 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2021 (86 FR 19160). The NPRM was prompted by reports of burned BMS 8-39 urethane foam found in certain locations on the airplane; investigation revealed that the fire-retardant properties degrade with age. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the insulation blankets in certain areas of the forward cargo compartment for exposed BMS 8-39 urethane foam, not encapsulated by a protective fire resistant barrier, and for seal integrity, and replacing the BMS 8-39 urethane foam and seal if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address degraded BMS 8-39 urethane foam used in seals, which may fail to maintain sufficient halon concentrations in the cargo compartments to extinguish or contain fire or smoke, and may fail to prevent penetration of fire or smoke in areas of the airplane that are difficult to access for fire and smoke detection or suppression, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725 RB, dated October 27, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for doing a general visual inspection of the insulation blankets in the area between station (STA) 960 and STA 1000 on the left and right sides of the forward cargo compartment for exposed BMS 8-39 urethane foam, not encapsulated by a protective fire resistant barrier, and seal integrity, and replacing any BMS 8-39 urethane foam that is found exposed and any seal that does not have acceptable integrity for a smoke barrier. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 109 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that are required. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RRD BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2020 (85 FR 72608). The NPRM was prompted by reports of HPT stage 1 blades failing in service due to sulphidation and subsequent crack initiation, due to contamination of the blade shank passing by the blade damper. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removal and replacement of the HPT stage 1 blade and HPT stage 1 blade damper. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0194, dated September 4, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1025.

The FAA received comments from one commenter. The commenter was Delta Airlines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta requested that the FAA revise the definition of “parts eligible for installation” to avoid the necessity of an alternate method of compliance (AMOC) request each time Rolls-Royce introduces a new part number for the HPT stage 1 blade or HPT stage 1 damper.

The FAA agrees and revised the definition of “parts eligible for installation” to allow installation of HPT stage 1 blades and HPT stage 1 dampers approved as eligible for installation in accordance with certain RRD service information.

Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (g)(1)(i) in the Required Actions section of this AD to refer to “flight cycles since new” instead of “flight cycles since first installation,” as proposed in the NPRM. Delta noted that the proposed language could be misinterpreted as referring to any affected HPT stage 1 blade, regardless of whether the affected HPT stage 1 blade is currently installed on an engine.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees to update this reference to avoid possible misinterpretation, but disagrees with the specific language proposed by the commenter. The FAA has updated paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD to read: “Before an affected HPT stage 1 blade exceeds 10,000 flight cycles (FCs) since first installation . . .”

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed RRD BR700 Series Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) SB-BR700-72-A900640, Revision 1, dated August 31, 2018. The Alert NMSB describes procedures for removing and replacing the HPT stage 1 blade and HPT stage 1 blade damper. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA reviewed RRD Service Bulletin (SB) SB-BR700-72-102005, dated March 20, 2018; RRD NMSB SB-BR700-72-900118, dated June 6, 2017; and RRD SB SB-BR700-72-101671, dated January 29, 2010. RRD SB SB-BR700-72-102005, dated March 20, 2018, introduces a new HPT stage 1 blade damper with a front restrictor that reduces the average airflow into the blade shank cavity, thereby reducing deposition of particles in the cavity. RRD NMSB SB-BR700-72-900118, dated June 6, 2017, describes procedures for recording the serial numbers of the cleaned, crack tested, and examined HPT stage 1 blades. RRD SB SB-BR700-72-101671, dated January 29, 2010, introduces a redesigned HPT stage 1 blade that improves robustness and stress characteristics.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 222 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The agency estimates that the service life of both the HPT stage 1 blade and HPT stage 1 blade damper are 5.5 years. Based on this life estimate, the agency is providing an estimated annual cost to replace these parts.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2021 (86 FR 11662). The NPRM was prompted by reports of error messages on the FADEC B DECU, caused by blistering of the varnish on the DECU circuit board. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the replacement of certain FADEC B DECUs. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2020-0046, dated March 4, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0100.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Note Technique AA187866, Version A, dated 18 Octobre 2019 [October 18, 2019]. This service information identifies the serial numbers (S/Ns) of certain FADEC B DECUs installed on Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2872, Version A, dated October 17, 2019. This MSB describes procedures for identifying the S/Ns of certain FADEC B DECUs and replacing certain FADEC B DECUs on Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 148 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2003-25-01, Amendment 39-13384 (68 FR 69596, December 15, 2003) (AD 2003-25-01), for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS332C, C1, L, and L1, AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, and D, and AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters with a Breeze 300 pound electric hoist (hoist) and hoist operator control unit 26M part number (P/N) 350A63-1136-00 or 350A63-1136-01, and hoist electric box 91M P/N 332A67-2875-00, installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2021 (86 FR 22363). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying and re-identifying the hoist operator control unit, replacing the fuses, and performing a functional test of the hoist operation and the emergency jettison controls. The NPRM also proposed to require reporting certain information and prohibit the installation of an affected hoist until the required actions are accomplished.

The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2019-0228, dated September 12, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0228) to supersede DGAC AD 2002-585(A), dated November 27, 2002 (DGAC AD 2002-585(A)), issued by DGAC, which is the aviation authority for France. EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD 2019-0228 to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3, AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, and AS 355 N helicopters. EASA advises that Airbus Helicopters identified translation errors in the service information required for compliance by DGAC AD 2002-585(A). Airbus Helicopters was also informed that there could be helicopters modified by that service information with incorrect installations. Prompted by these findings, Airbus Helicopters revised the related service information. Therefore, EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0228 to require modifying and re-identifying the hoist operator control unit, replacing the fuses, and performing a functional test of the hoist operation and the emergency jettison controls as intended by DGAC AD 2002-585(A) with the revised service information. EASA AD 2019-0228 also requires reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters and prohibits the installation of an affected part on any helicopter unless it has been modified.

The NPRM also retains the requirements from AD 2003-25-01 for Model AS332C, C1, L, and L1 helicopters with a certain hoist and hoist box installed, based on DGAC AD 2002-584(A), dated November 27, 2002.

Additionally, since the FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, the FAA discovered that the applicability needed to be revised. This AD revises the applicability by distinguishing the hoist box installations by P/N, clarifying that Airbus Helicopters service information refers to a hoist box as a hoist operator's control unit, adding TRW, Lucas, and Air Equipement hoists for affected Model AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters, and adding an exception for affected helicopters to exclude those with a certain modification (MOD) installed.

Lastly, since the FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, Eurocopter France changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. This AD reflects that change and updates the contact information to obtain service documentation.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These helicopters have been approved by both the authority of France and EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with France and the European Union, DGAC and EASA have notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in the ADs issued by each authority. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. With the exception of the minor editorial change of adding, “With a” in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this AD, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 25.00.71, Revision 2, dated May 14, 2019 (ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2), Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.79, Revision 3, dated September 24, 2019 (ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3), and Eurocopter ASB No. 25.01.18, dated November 12, 2002 (ASB 25.01.18). ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 applies to Model AS355-series helicopters, ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 applies to Model AS350-series helicopters, and ASB 25.01.18 applies to Model AS332-series helicopters. ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 specify procedures to install MOD 07 3190, which consists of eliminating resistor 27M in the hoist operator's control unit 26M and replacing the 2.5A quick-response fuses on the Honeywell unit at 30 alpha or 21 delta for Model AS350-series helicopters or on the distribution panel 10 alpha for Model 355-series helicopters. ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 also specify reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters. ASB 25.01.18 specifies procedures to install MOD 332PCS 78 288, which consists of eliminating resistor 81M in hoist box 91M and re-identifying the hoist box as 332P67-2894-01, -02, -03, or -04, depending on which electrical wiring assembly is installed in the helicopter.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.71, Revision 1, dated May 21, 2014 (ASB 25.00.71 Rev 1), and ASB No. 25.00.79, Revision 1, dated May 21, 2014 (ASB 25.00.79 Rev 1) and Revision 2 (ASB 25.00.79 Rev 2), dated May 14, 2019.

ASB 25.00.71 Rev 1 specifies the same actions as ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2, except ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 provides a reminder that MOD 07 3190 is mandatory and adds a reporting response form. ASB 25.00.79 Rev 1 and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 2 specify the same actions as ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3, except ASB 25.00.79 Rev 2 provides a reminder that MOD 07 3190 is mandatory and adds a reporting response form and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 adds Model AS350L1 to the effectivity.

EASA AD 2019-0228 applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model is not FAA type-certificated. EASA AD 2019-0228 requires modifying affected parts within 100 flight hours or 2 months, whichever occurs first, whereas this AD requires these actions before next flight involving a hoist operation for Model AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters instead.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects up to 977 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Modifying and re-identifying the hoist operator control unit, replacing the fuses, and functionally testing the hoist operation and the emergency jettison controls takes about 4 work hours and parts cost about $20 for an estimated cost of $360 per helicopter and up to $351,720 for the U.S. fleet.

For Model AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters, reporting information takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and up to $82,195 for the U.S. fleet.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E and modifies Class E airspace at Williston Basin International Airport, Williston, ND, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (86 FR 21672; April 23, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0292 to modify the Class E airspace at Williston Basin International Airport, Williston, ND. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

After the publication of the NPRM, the FAA determined that Class E4 airspace should be established versus modifying the Class E2 airspace. This action corrects the NPRM by establishing Class E4 airspace. This airspace area is designed to contain IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the surface on the VOR RWY 22 approach. The new Class E4 area is identical to the Class E2 modification that was proposed in the NPRM. The airspace is described as “That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the 045° bearing from the airport, extending from the Class E2's 4.2-mile radius to 6.8 miles northeast of the airport.”

Class E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes a Class E airspace area, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at Williston Basin International Airport, Williston, ND. This airspace area is established northeast of the airport and is designed to contain arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the surface on the VOR RWY 22 approach.

Additionally, this action modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This airspace is designed to contain arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. An area northeast and another southwest of the airport are added to contain IFR aircraft arriving and departing the airport.

Lastly, the action updates the geographic coordinates in the Class E2 and Class E5 text headers. The coordinates are updated to “lat. 48°15′35″ N, long. 103°45′02″ W,” to match the FAA database.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0567 in the Federal Register (85 FR 38799; June 29, 2020) amending Federal airways A-15, V-444, J-502, and J-511 in Alaska. A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking was also published for Docket No. FAA-2020-0567 in the Federal Register (85 FR 60108 September 24, 2020) amending Federal airways J-502, and J-511 in Alaska, and establishing two Q routes, Q-902, and Q-811. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Colored and Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009 and 6010(b), Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, and Canadian Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2007 of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Federal airways, jet routes, and Canadian Area Navigation routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

In the supplemental NPRM published in the Federal Register (85 FR 60108; September 24, 2020) proposal section addressing the establishment of Q-811 and Q-902, they were referred to as Alaskan Air Navigational routes, which was stated in error. This same error was made in the proposed amendment section. Q-811 and Q-902 are extensions of Canadian Area Navigation routes that extend into Alaskan airspace and should be referenced under paragraph 2007. This rule corrects that editorial error in the amendment section.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Federal airways A-15, and V-444, jet routes J-502, and J-511, and Canadian Area Navigation RoutesQ-811, and Q-902. The airway actions are described below.

A-15: A-15 currently extends between the Ethelda, BC, Canada, NDB and the Delta Junction, AK, NDB. This action removes the segment between the Intersection of Sisters Island 331°, and Whitehorse 207° radials and Beaver Creek, YT, NDB. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

V-444: V-444 currently extends between the Barrow, AK, NDB and the Burwash, YT, NDB. This action removes the segment between the intersection of the Northway 138°, and Gulkana 079° and Burwash, YT, NDB. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted. The portion within Canada is excluded.

J-502: J-502 currently extends between Seattle, WA and Kotzebue, AK. This action removes the segment between the Sister Island, AK, VORTAC and the Northway, AK, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing route would remain as charted.

J-511: J-511 currently extends between Dillingham, AK and Burwash Landing, YT, Canada, NDB. This action removes the segment between the Gulkana VORTAC and the Burwash Landing, YT, Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing route would remain as charted.

Q-811: This action extends Canadian Area Navigation Route Q-811 to overly the existing J-511 to mitigate the route segments that cannot be supported by ground navigational facilities. Q-811 starts at Dillingham, AK and terminates at the newly established waypoint of IGSOM, which was established to replace the Burwash NDB, excluding that airspace in Canada.

Q-902: This action extends Canadian Area Navigation Route Q-902 to overlay the existing J-502 in its entirety, to mitigate route segments that cannot be supported by ground navigation facilities. Q-902 starts at Seattle, WA and terminates at Kotzebue, AK, excluding that airspace in Canada.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending of Federal airways A-15, and V-444, jet routesJ-502, and J-511, and Canadian Area Navigation Routes Q-811, and Q-902 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0642 in the Federal Register (85 FR 47928; August 7, 2020) and a final rule (86 FR 29946; June 4, 2021), amending VOR Federal airways V-25, V-27, V-494, V-108, V-301, and RNAV route T-257 in the vicinity of Santa Rosa, CA, due to the planned decommissioning of the Santa Rosa, CA, VOR/DME NAVAID. Subsequent to the publication, it was determined that Mendocino, CA, VOR was missing from the legal description of V-494. This rule corrects that error by including Mendocino, CA, VOR in its appropriate place in the V-494 legal description. This is an editorial change only and does not alter the alignment of the route as shown on aeronautical charts, and does not affect the use of the route by aircraft.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

A Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) provides detailed guidance about the enforcement or compliance with a certain Federal marine safety regulations and Coast Guard marine safety programs. While NVIC's are non-directive, meaning that they do not have the force of law, they are important “tools” for complying with the law. To best serve the public and maritime industry, the Coast Guard is reviewing and actively managing its inspections policy to ensure that all published NVICs are consistent with current practices.

The Coast Guard is issuing this document under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(e). This document serves to inform the public about the cancellation and removal of certain obsolete and outdated Coast Guard NVICs. The Coast Guard wishes to reduce confusion to the public by removing NVICs that do not reflect current practices and that potentially conflict with more modern guidance.

1. NVIC 09-83 provided guidance on the carriage of charts and publications. The regulations it references were amended in June 2001. Agencies mentioned in the NVIC no longer provide the services mentioned as charts have moved to digital formatting. Current policy can be found in the superseding NVIC 01-16.

2. NVICs 02-97 and 02-97CH-1 provided guidance on the implementation of operational measures for existing tank vessels without double hulls until 2015. The phase out ended on January 1, 2015. Since the phase out date of January 1, 2015 has passed the guidance no longer applies. Due to the obsolescence of the vessel classification this NVIC regulates, there is no longer a need for its publication.

3. NVICs 10-94, 10-94CH-1, and 10-94CH-2 provided guidance for the OPA 90 Phase-Out Schedule of single hull vessels carrying oil. The phase out ended on January 1, 2015. After January 1, 2015 any vessel carrying oil must be double hulled, except for those exceptions under 46 U.S.C. 3703a (b)(1)-(5). The phase out was final in 2015. Therefore, there are no more vessels operating lawfully which would need a determination for phase out. This eliminates the need for guidance in classifying them.

4. NVIC 10-83 provides guidance on the procedures for the issuance of stability letters to small passenger vessels (SPV) of less than 65′. The Coast Guard organizations referenced no longer exist and the SPV stability regulations have been updated twice since the date of issuance. This NVIC is outdated and confusing to the public. The current regulatory requirements for a stability letter can be found in 46 CFR part 170.

5. NVIC 00-13 provides guidance on the list of currently applicable NVICs as of January 1, 2013. This list is incomplete and outdated. The list of currently applicable NVICs has not been updated since January 1, 2013. The Coast Guard provides all NVICs on its outward facing website where each NVIC entry's description indicates whether its currently applicable.

6. NVIC 05-71 provides an index of 46 CFR part 151 under subchapter O that concerns barges carrying bulk liquid hazardous material cargoes. The subchapter has been altered since the time of the NVIC's release. The information in this NVIC is no longer accurate or current. The current outline of subchapter O on certain bulk dangerous cargoes can be found as part of the eCFR, provided at no cost online.

7. NVIC 07-99 provides guidance regarding the Coast Guard's policy on ensuring maritime safety during the year 2000 (Y2K) date change. The year 2000 has passed and this policy is no longer applicable.

8. NVIC 13-92 provides guidance concerning the delineation of Captain of the Port (COTP) zone boundaries throughout the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). NVIC 13-92 has out of date geographical limits to represent COTP zone boundaries and is obsolete. The current COTP boundaries are properly reflected in 33 CFR part 3.

The Southern Maryland Boat Club of Leonardtown, MD, has notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Southern Maryland Boat Club Wharf Summer Regatta from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on July 31, 2021, and from 10:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 1, 2021. The high-speed boat event consists of approximately 50 participating vintage and historic race boats—including runabouts, v-bottoms, tunnel hulls, and hydroplanes—12 to 21 feet in length. The boats will be participating in an exhibition, operating in heats along a marked racetrack-type course 1 mile in length and 150 feet in width, located in Breton Bay and McIntosh Run at Leonardtown, MD. The Regatta is not a competition, but rather a demonstration of the vintage race craft. Hazards from the high-speed power boat demonstration event include participants operating within and adjacent to designated navigation channels and interfering with vessels intending to operate within those channels, as well as operating within approaches to local public boat landings. In response, on June 10, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; Breton Bay, McIntosh Run, Leonardtown, MD” (86 FR 30851). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this high-speed power boat event. During the comment period that ended June 25, 2021, we received no comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this high-speed power boat event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland—National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the high-speed power boat event would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of Breton Bay and McIntosh Run at Leonardtown, MD, operating in or near the event area. The pupose of this rule is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published June 10, 2021. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes special local regulations from 7 a.m. on July 31, 2021, through 6 p.m. on August 1, 2021. The special local regulation will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on July 31st and 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on August 1st. The regulated area covers all navigable waters of Breton Bay and McIntosh Run immediately adjacent to Leonardtown, MD, within an area bounded by lines drawn shoreline to shoreline, to the south along latitude 38°16′43″ N, and to the west along longitude 076°38′30″ W.

This rule provides additional information about areas within the regulated area, and the restrictions that would apply to mariners. These areas include a “Race area,” “Buffer area,” “Milling area” and “Spectator area.” They lie within an area bounded to the south by a line drawn along latitude 38°16′43″ N and bounded to the west by a line drawn along longitude 076°38′30″ W, located in Breton Bay and McIntosh Run at Leonardtown, MD.

The duration of the special local regulations and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed power boat event scheduled from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. on July 31, 2021, and from 10:15 a.m. until 4 p.m. on August 1, 2021. The COTP and the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander (PATCOM) have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area will be required to immediately comply with the directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM. If a person or vessel fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.

Except for Southern Maryland Boat Club Regatta participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get permission from the COTP or Event PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel operators can request permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Event PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols will be considered a spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or vessel will be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels are required to operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels will direct everyone other than participants while within the regulated area. Spectators are only allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated spectator area. Only participants and official patrols are allowed within the race area and milling area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on size, duration, and time of year of the regulated area, which will impact a small designated area of Breton Bay and McIntosh Run for 22 total enforcement hours. This waterway supports mainly recreational vessel traffic, which at its peak, occurs during the summer season. Although this regulated area extends across the entire width of the waterway, the rule allows vessels and persons to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic able to do so safely will be able to transit the regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. Such vessels must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake and not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for eleven hours each day. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the USACE is taking necessary and immediate action to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine environment.. Completing the full NPRM process is impracticable because the USCG must establish this safety zone as soon as possible to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine environment from the potential safety hazards associated with the time critical USACE operations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because we must respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the bank grading and mat sinking operations in the LMR by July 15, 2021.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP, LMR has determined that potential hazards associated with the bank grading and mat sinking operations will be a safety concern for anyone within a 300 yard radius of USACE equipment This rule is needed to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine environment within the safety zone while USACE operations are being conducted.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from July 15, 2021, through December 31, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the LMR from Mile Marker (MM) 332 through MM 862 extending the entire width of the river. The safety zone will only be activated when USACE operations preclude safe navigation of the established channel. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while operations are being conducted. Broadcast Notice to Mariners will be used to inform marine traffic of these times based on notice provided by the USACE.

Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 314-269-2332. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone will temporarily restrict navigation on the LMR from MM 332 through MM 863, from July 15, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Moreover, The Coast Guard will issue BNMs, LNMs, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate. The rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone on the LMR from MM 332 through MM 863, that will prohibit entry into this temporary zone. The safety zone will only be enforced while operations preclude the safe navigation of the established channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. On July 7, 2021 a cruise ship grounded near MM 62 of the Cumberland River causing a hazardous condition for the disembarkation of the passengers on board. Due to the nature of the Cumberland River and the amount of recreational vessels there is potential risk during salvage of the cruise ship to recreational vessels in the area. The safety zone must be established immediately to protect people, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship and the disembarkation of the passengers on board. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 9, 2021.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship and the disembarkation of the passengers on board.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage and disembarkation of passengers from a grounded cruise ship will be a safety concern for anyone between MM 61 and MM 64 on the Cumberland River. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards due to the salvage of a cruise ship and the disembarkation of the passengers on board at MM 62 on the Cumberland River.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from July 9, 2021 through July 16, 2021, or until the hazard have been mitigated. The temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Cumberland River from MM 61 to MM 64. The COTP will terminate the enforcement of this temporary safety zone before July 16, 2021 if the hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship and the disembarkation of the passengers on board have been resolved. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 502-779-5422 or the on scene designated representative can be reached via VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this temporary safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration. This temporary safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting within a 3 mile area of navigable waters on the Cumberland River between MM 61 and MM 64. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 about the temporary safety zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting seven days or until the salvage of a cruise ship, and disembarkation of the passengers on board is complete. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461, note), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, April 26, 1996, and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act), Public Law 114-74, November 2, 2015, required agencies to annually adjust the level of CMP for inflation to improve their effectiveness and maintain their deterrent effect.

With this rule, the new statutory maximum penalty levels listed in Table 1 will apply to all statutory civil penalties assessed on or after the effective date of this rule. Table 1 shows the calculation of the 2021 annual inflation adjustment based on the guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see December 23, 2020, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2021, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act 2015). The OMB provided to agencies the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2021, based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October 2020, not seasonally adjusted, which is 1.01182. Agencies are to adjust “the maximum civil monetary penalty or the range of minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties, as applicable, for each civil monetary penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment.” For 2021, agencies multiply each applicable penalty by the multiplier, 1.01182, and round to the nearest dollar. The multiplier should be applied to the most recent penalty amount, i.e., the one that includes the 2020 annual inflation adjustment.

Section 4 of the Inflation Adjustment Act directs federal agencies to publish annual penalty inflation adjustments. In accordance with Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), most rules are subject to notice and comment and are effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Section 4(b)(2) of the Inflation Adjustment Act further provides that each agency shall make the annual inflation adjustments “notwithstanding section 553” of the APA. According to the December 2020 OMB guidance issued to Federal agencies on the implementation of the 2021 annual adjustment, the phrase “notwithstanding section 553” means that “the public procedure the APA generally requires ( i.e., notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date) is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.” Consistent with the language of the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB's implementation guidance, this rule is not subject to notice and opportunity for public comment. This rule adjusts the value of current statutory civil penalties to reflect and keep pace with the levels originally set by Congress when the statutes were enacted, as required by the Inflation Adjustment Act. This rule will apply prospectively to penalty assessments beginning on the effective date of this final rule.

In compliance with the principles in the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, regarding plain language, this preamble is written using plain language. The use of “we” in this notice refers to the Corps and the use of “you” refers to the reader. We have also used the active voice, short sentences, and common everyday terms except for necessary technical terms.

This rule is not designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and OMB determined this rule to not be significant. Moreover, this final rule makes nondiscretionary adjustments to existing civil monetary penalties in accordance with the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB guidance. The Corps, therefore, did not consider alternatives and does not have the flexibility to alter the adjustments of the civil monetary penalty amounts as provided in this rule.

The Department of Defense determined that provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements. This action merely increases the level of statutory civil penalties that could be imposed in the context of a federal civil administrative enforcement action or civil judicial case for violations of Corps-administered statutes and their implementing regulations.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

Because notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule the mandates of which require spending in any year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2016, that threshold is approximately $146 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the rule on children, and explain why the regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This rule is not subject to this Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. In addition, it does not concern an environmental or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The phrase “policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This rule does not have tribal implications. The rule imposes no new substantive obligations on tribal governments. Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission. Executive Order 12898 provides that each Federal agency conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin. This rule merely adjusts civil penalties to account for inflation, and therefore, is not expected to negatively impact any community, and therefore is not expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities.

This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 33, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This final rule removes from the Code of Federal Regulations 33 CFR part 274 titled, “Pest Control Program for Civil Works Projects,” which assigns responsibilities and prescribes procedures concerning the use of chemicals in the USACE pest control program at Civil Works projects under the authority of Public Law 92-516, as amended, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide ACT (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., which among other things, transferred responsibility of pesticide regulation from the Department of Agriculture to the Environmental Protection Agency. This rule was initially published on August 15, 1977 (42 FR 41118). While the rule applies only to the Corps' Pest Control Program, it was published, at that time, in the Federal Register to aid public accessibility.

The solicitation of public comment for this removal is unnecessary because the rule is out-of-date, duplicative of existing internal agency guidance, and otherwise covers internal agency operations that have no public compliance component or adverse public impact. For current public accessibility purposes, updated internal agency policy on this topic may be found in Engineer Regulation 1130-2-540, “Environmental Stewardship Operations and Maintenance Guidance and Procedures” (available at https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER_1130-2-540.pdf ) The agency policy is only applicable to field operating activities having responsibility for the Pest Control Program and provides guidance specific to the Corps' use of chemicals at Civil Works projects.

This rule removal is being conducted to reduce confusion for the public as well as for the Corps regarding the current policy which governs the Corps' Pest Control Program. Because the regulation does not place a burden on the public, its removal does not provide a reduction in public burden or costs. This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

In the 2021 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021), NMFS announced management measures for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, effective from 0001 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), May 16, 2021, until the effective date of the 2022 management measures, as published in the Federal Register . NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions).

Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (NOF) (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and South of Cape Falcon (SOF) (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The action described in this document affected the SOF commercial salmon fishery as set out under the heading Inseason Action.

The fishery affected by the inseason action described below was authorized in the final rule for 2021 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021).

The management subarea from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon/California border has two quota managed seasons for the commercial salmon fishery, June (300 Chinook salmon) and July (200 Chinook salmon). The first quota season opened on June 1, 2021, with a weekly landing limit of 20 Chinook salmon per vessel per week (Thursday-Wednesday). During the first 15 days of the season, the reported landings reached 271 Chinook salmon (90 percent of the quota), leaving 29 Chinook salmon remaining on the quota with one day remaining in the landing week. Taking into account the number of vessels participating, the fishery had the potential to exceed the quota by the end of the day (Wednesday, June 16, 2021). Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (ODFW) recommended immediate closure of the fishery to prevent exceeding the quota.

The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator (RA) considered the landings of Chinook salmon in the SOF commercial salmon fishery, fishery effort occurring to date as well as anticipated under the proposal, and the Chinook salmon quota remaining and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management and conservation objectives. Inseason modification of fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

Consultation on this inseason action occurred on June 16, 2021. Representatives from NMFS, ODFW, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Council staff participated in the consultation.

Description of the action: In the commercial salmon fishery south of Cape Falcon in the Oregon KMZ from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon/California border, the season open from June 1 to June 30, or the earlier of 300 chinook salmon quota, is closed.

Effective dates: Inseason action #18 took effect at 11:59 p.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2021, and remains in effect until superseded. This inseason action was announced on NMFS' telephone hotline and U.S. Coast Guard radio broadcast on June 16, 2021 (50 CFR 660.411(a)(2)).

All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2021 ocean salmon fisheries (86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021), as modified by previous inseason action (86 FR 34161, June 29, 2021).

The RA determined that this inseason action was warranted based on the best available information on Pacific salmon abundance forecasts and anticipated fishery effort. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone consistent with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures at 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory action was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

NMFS issues these actions pursuant to section 305(d) of the MSA. These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on these actions, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on these actions was impracticable because NMFS had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon abundance, catch, and effort information was developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021), the fishery management plan (FMP), and regulations implementing the FMP under 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date, as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.